It is a part of mankind to play games. We played in the Stone Age. We played in Roman times. It’s an escape from the everyday grind. Every day we work hard and we make mistakes and we are punished for those mistakes. Games take us to another role where you can make mistakes and you don’t get punished for them. You can always start another game.

Games are experiments, ways to tinker and noodle around with thoughts and actions, all in a place where risk is minimized. That’s part of why I keep working on game designs; I think they serve a purpose that other entertainment and education forms don’t. Play, after all, is healthy.

And you can always start another game.

It really is OK to put down that MMO treadmill and try something new (though Altitis can be a good middle ground, leading to new experiences as BBB notes). Sometimes, I really do think we lose some of the joy and promise of games by insisting on perpetual progress and persistence, constantly comparing ourselves to others and their achievements in an effort to validate our time spent, rather than just… playing.

In my games, I’m always looking for a very simple set of mechanics or rules that lead to these complex situations,” says Creative Director Jay Kyburz. “I enjoy games where everybody understands how the game works, and has a simple set of decisions to make, but find themselves with lots of interesting problems to solve because of how the players are interacting within that simple rule system.

The Escapist has a good article up on Foozles; those Big Bad end bosses in the majority of RPGs. Certainly, there is a place for a Big Bad villain to serve as a strong antagonist in a narrative, but what can you do without one?

I’ve been writing an “alternate history” sort of book/series for a while now, sort of a mix of Steampunk ethos and Dinotopia with a fair dose of Norse-inspired whimsy. It’s not in any sort of publishable form as yet, but as I’ve been crafting the world and its history, I just haven’t been able to find a good place for a singular Big Bad. The scope of what I’m angling for is more political and sweeping than would be served justice by a single criminal mastermind. (It’s worth noting that Dinotopia is the single strongest influence in this project, and that excellent book is most about exploring an amazing world, not a Heroic Journey needing resolution.)

One alternate that I’ve toyed with is the sort of thing that Kirk dealt with in The Doomsday Machine; a totally nonsentient relic of a forgotten war. Of course, it would serve as a singular menace akin to a Big Bad, but it also has elements of a force of nature, in that it simply functions; there is no malicious deviant at the helm. Even so, that just isn’t terribly satisfying to me, and if I go that route, it’s going to be a wheel within a wheel. The notion of a singular Big Bad just seems too… simple to me. Too… neat of a solution to a world where factions and contentions aren’t merely black and white.

That doesn’t mean that it’s bad to have a clear singular enemy. Darth Vader has his fans, and in some ways, he really makes the movies. Simplicity isn’t a bad thing either, especially in a relatively straightforward morality tale.

So, singular iconic villains aren’t a sign of incompetence… they just aren’t the only way to create conflicts for heroes to overcome. In a lot of ways, heroes are made by a lot of little choices, not by the singular defeat of a true monster. Sometimes it’s the quiet moments that are the most important; the choices that don’t save the world, but define a soul.

The Escapist article floated the notion that games have indulged in Foozle hunting for a long time, and may yet for a long time. Perhaps games are too simple a storytelling medium to do much else… or perhaps our writers (and players) are too immature. Maybe the mainstream of games will always be a Foozle hunt (whether in the Big Bad mold or the “kill ten foozles” mole)… but I believe there’s a place for something a bit more subtle.

So, until July 30th, you can get Fractal and/or Auditorium for $5 each. These are great games, well worth the cost. I’m stingy, so I’ve been waiting for a sale, but these have been at the top of my “pull the trigger and buy” list.

Really, just go play their demos (right on the web, no download) and see what they are. Auditorium especially really needs to be experienced, and Fractal is a rock-solid bit of fun hex-based puzzling. I was sold on the demos… but now that I’ve played the “full” game for each (at least, in breadth, if not depth), I’d recommend them even higher. The demos are good fun, but the full games are fantastic.

Disclosure: I have no material connection to these guys and receive no benefits from promoting these games. I just think they are great games, totally worth playing and buying. If nothing else, go check them out, and if you like ’em, spread the word! That’s part of how the indie game development world works; we can’t rely on publishers to make or break our games.

It’s a perpetual dance in game design. Give the players freedom to go do crazy things, or put them on rails so they don’t break your game (or play it the “wrong” way)? It’s a fine line that “live” games (MMOs, MTG, Warhammer, even) are especially wary of, since they are constantly on the edge between broken and brilliant… especially since that line is different for different players.

So, while the RealID kerfluffle is also stirring troubled waters between freedom and control, the game design of WoW is also testing the waters in the “control” side of the (kiddie?) pool. I fall squarely on the side of freedom, exploration and experimentation in games. To me, that’s the point of playing a game; to try something I can’t do in real life, and tinker in new and unusual ways. That’s my “theory of fun“; messing around, looking around, taking control as a player and seeing what happens. That’s why my articles on game design are more about giving the player control, not controlling the player. (It’s also why I consider failure itself punishment enough, and don’t particularly care for “death penalties” and other punishment mechanics. Just let me play the game, already!)

So, Blizzard wants to take the reins and make class talent trees more like immutable pillars or mini-classes, less like… guidelines. The goal seems to be to make the newbie experience better, and give class trees their own (dev-defined) identity and playstyle earlier in the leveling curve.

OK, the goal of improving the leveling game and newbie experience sounds good to me so far, and entirely in-theme for the renovated world we’re getting in Cataclysm. The newbie experience is crucial to getting the game to “stick”, and letting players have a taste of what they can do later is a great idea. (It’s played differently in things like Metroid Prime… which I’d actually prefer, but that’s not terribly likely here. Pity.) The sooner a Warrior can feel like a Warrior, or a Hunter can feel like a Hunter, the better (which is why pets at character creation is a Good Idea, while we’re talking class identity). It might even make grouping pre-endgame better, as players learn their roles earlier… if you care about that sort of thing.

Thing is, I’d have done it by making the trees more synergistic, rather than locking players into one progression path. (The very least that I’d do is make respeccing free and easy like Guild Wars, if we’re going to be stuck maxxing a tree before experimenting, and make Dual Spec very cheap and offer it early, say level 20 at the latest.) Rather than lock players into a choice of one of thirty subclasses and telling them to get used to it, I’d give them more choices and make them all interesting and useful, letting player playstyle dictate direction. I know, I know, that’s more work, but hey, it’s not like Blizzard’s a charity, hm? That sort of experimental playstyle also pretty much requires frequent respecs.

I like that a leveling Warrior can pick up a few Arms talents and a few Fury talents and go to town. As time goes on, generalization tends to be less powerful than specialization, but more flexible. I love that balance, and much prefer the option to sacrifice some power for flexibility. That’s why I play a Druid. (Insert rant about how hybrids are as good as two or three “pure” classes all rolled into one, if you so desire; I think there’s a good argument to be made for making “pure” classes undeniably best at what they do, while still keeping hybrids viable. I know, I know, in a world where 3% improved crit rate is worth investing three talent points, even a hybrid at 95% potential is going to feel like it’s nerfed… that’s one of the problems with only having three combat roles and 10 classes…)

So yeah, I’m a bit ambivalent about this talent tree overhaul. All in all, I can’t really find much but personal preference to base complaints in, and I do strongly believe that options are the heart of games. I don’t like the straitjacketing that the changes represent because I tend to explore and tinker rather than just go with the flow, and yet… the streamlining is probably a Good Thing overall, since it may well make learning the trinity easier earlier, and learning your class more entertaining (rather than only coming to fruition at the endgame).

As long as WoW is stuck in that class-trinity rut, they may as well teach it well.

For now, I’m going to say:

“OK, Blizzard, I detest your business practices with the deepest, hottest fire of a grumpy dragon, and this Game Design thing you do, well, I think it needs work, too, but since you’re dedicated to a path I’d not choose, you may as well do it right, and this change, well… that’ll do.”

…and yes, I think it’s important to draw a distinction between the game design and the business design. They do affect each other in unhealthy ways, but credit where credit is due, after all. The WoW devs do have a few good ideas here and there. I do not agree with their apparent core philosophy of control over freedom, but they are at least making a few good changes to make their game better… even if I’d have made a very different game.

It’s like the Cataclysm on the whole; I think it’s a good idea (and I called for “old world” renovation a year before they announced it), but I’d have made the game world more dynamic from the start. They are doing decent design for their goals and within the box they put themselves in. Perhaps that’s a bit of “condemning with praise”, but so be it. I do think they do good game design, but it’s increasingly a game that I don’t particularly like.

That said, may I take a moment and remind people that this was still a stupid jerk move in the first place, and recanting after people get pissed doesn’t tell us that they have changed, or that they are sorry, just that they dance well. They never should have done this in the first place, and their claim that they have been thinking about this for a long time should tell us that they are still either incompetent or arrogant. That doesn’t change with a slap on the proverbial wrist. They aren’t sorry that they tried this, they are sorry they got called on it and that their revenue was threatened. There’s a world of difference.

Oh, and this was a textbook example of goodwill withdrawal. They might yet staunch the blood flow, but the point remains that this was a totally unnecessary and avoidable self-inflicted wound.